Firstly- and I say this not to belittle your views- the word is deviant.

Secondly, to talk of deviance is to use an idea others have used as a banner of hate and repression, so treading lightly is important. Also, you grossly overestimate the size and importance of "normal", though no harm in having a strong preference for it.

Thirdly, IMHO, the word homophobe gets tossed around a bit too easily (like racist, anti-semite, sexist), with the result of covering over more benignly-held perspectives or preferences. From your comments, I see how you could find this frustrating. When I read your Wiki article again, I'll think of how to address that.

Well I'm a bad speller.


And I have been offended by your use of pejoritive terms not to mention all that horse shit will be available to anybody who wants to view the history.


From the outside looking in....whenever I have seen referances to Wikipiedia....The fact that anybody can publish whatever they like is always mentioned.


Everybody here already knows that what Wikipiedia has on Marc Emery is "contrary to the facts."

You can read into the thread that polical coorrectness is not my strong point.

Like I said.....with the millions of words I have written on every subject under the Sun, Why would you pick what I have to say about sexual diviants to put on display?

Does Wikipiedia have some sort of pro-homosexual agenda?

There can be no other reason to even mention the subject except for politcal propaganda purposes.

That is something Wikipiedia says they are against but I have repeatedly pointed out the falseness of that assertion.

Wikipiedia....a politcal propaganda rag.

I get off tossing around terms like immoral and diviant because I can defend them.

And like I said, I got pretty thick skin. I'm in the public eye and I been called worse.

My pointg is that Wikipiedia is full of shit.


Your printed policy is that "neutral" will be the portrayal and propaganda will not be tolerated.

Well, the item on me is very biased and full of politcal propaganda.

So you are either lying to yourselves or your full of shit.


See, here I get to debate and defend my poisitions.

There at Wikipiedia.......I don't.

So you have the upper hand and the last say.

So who is going to resepct any of that.

Do you understand that point?


Here I get to make my argument there I don't.

Again....printing accusations of sock puppets undermines one of my fundemental rights.

The right to face my accusers. I'm not given that over at Wikipiedia.

Here my accusers are afraid to state their names so that I can get in on all the fun of slagging them.

Do you not understand that issue. A sock puppet, some anonomus poster, is making accusations and you are printing them. No respectable newspaper would do that.

The fact that you are using a sock puppet name tells me you are well aware of the dangers of using your own name on the internet.

I could just as easily disappear off the face of the Earth and then what would you print in that rag?

"Tigerman" at cannabisculture has been accused of whatever?


Look up Abbraccadabra here.....

Abby for short.....the guy printed borderline anti-semite stuff for years and no-one knows who he is even now that he has been banned.

That is easy to do.

So like I said, when Wikipiedia pretends to be respectable and they print things that are not verified then it amount to a rumour publishing propaganda rag.

I wouldn't go to the National Enquirer and complain about anything they had published either because everybody knows that rag is full of bs too.

The fact that of all the topics I covered in the millions of lines, Wikipiedia chose only to highlight what a sock puppetaccused me of.

Like I said, I would sooner have people come here and see the debate for themselves.

So where was I wrong in my arguments?

Are the scat people predestined to engage in that kind of sex?

How about the S and M people? You don't see David Malmo Levine answer that science tells us all that is gene driven do you? The science is junk behind the homosexual's in nature stuff. How many animal participate in S and M?

How many animals engage in scat? 10%?

I am challanging junk science in all of that.....you can read all the homophobia into that you want.

But I'm like Stephen Harper. I don't care about the 1% homosexual vote especially when it is measure off against the 99% hetrosexual vote.

So I am right in my arguments from a scientific point of view, homosexuals are classified as diviants. They diviate from the norm.

Male and female are complimentary sexes. Anything else and you are diviating from the norms of society.

And morality is an individual thing.

So, you have seen for yourself, I have no anti-homosexual agenda. Just like you have no pro-homosexual agenda.

I have a live and let live policy.

Yet there I am painted as a homophobe at Wikipiedia.

What I am not is politically correct. What everybody wants to hear is that homosexuality is "normal."

Well, no it is not normal, not any more than S and M or scat. It is a chosen sexual preferance.

Hetrosexual is normal. Those are the facts. Ugly as they are.

So if truth telling is anti-homosexual in your mind so be it.

Remember, your talking to the only guy in the Province of Manitoba with the nerve to put his name to the "pro-drug" agenda. I been called a lot of things and the least of my concerns is being labeled a homophobe....As I already stated that is a made up psychaitric sounding word meant to stigmatize. Every term in the psychiatrists arsenal is a stigmatizing term. Homophobe is like using the word addiction....implies the guy has some thing wrong with him.

I don't think it's wrong to be politically incorrect. It has been my goal to seperate medicine and state just because of the power of psychaitry and their stigmatizing words.

I was gonna edit the article about Buors, but after reading it I find it to be pretty decent and an accurate depiction based on what I've read about Buors Politics.

There's a Paragraph that cites his accusors as calling him homophobic, but he is given a qute that I think accurately reflects what he is voicing here.

tell me if I've got the message wrong:

"You wanna be a homosexual, fine. Just don't expect me to hang out with you"

Thats what i'm reading into this...among other things...and I think the article seems accurate enough.

I've just finished editing the Cannabis Culture page in wikipedia to include the Magazine and links to the BCMP and Marc Emery. It's a minor edit and I would like to go back and write alot more on that article, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I also viewed the edit history for Chris Buors wiki entry and it would clearly appear that the user CJCurrie takes issue with Buors and has alluded to such in her Edit history reffering to Buors as "Buors isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer (among other things)".

whatever. If Buors truly thinks as little of the Wikipedia as he claims then he'd be wise to leave it be if he doesn't like it.

xynamax

Thank you for taking time out of you day to look into that Currie person's comments.


Have a read of what they claim to be their propaganda position and see if you think they are living up to their "neutral" assertion.

Like I said, I've heard it all. Been called it all.

That's politcs. It's a bloodsport and I give as good as I get.

But here people can banter back and forth and get a feel for what I really had to say.

I don't want to hang out with gamblers because I think it is immoral to waste money on that vice. I don't hang with boozers because I think that getting drunk everyday from sunrise to sunset is an immoral waste of life.

So why isn't that mentioned at Wikipedia?

I don't want to hang out with sexual perverts of any sort. The S and M people, the scatologists and others I judge as engaging in immoral acts.

Turns out I don't like other people thrusting their morality on me, so I do not advocate thrusting my morals on others.

Why don't they print that in Wikipiedia?

what difference does it make really?

its the internet itself that is the real encyclopedia.

if someone can find a page at wiki, they can find info somewhere else to corroberate or dispel it.

and if someone does run with inaccurate info from there, they are setting themselves up to look foolish.

how many times do you see wikipedia referenced as a source?

Quote:

---

Why don't they print that in Wikipiedia?

---

now that you've posted it, they can

thats all it takes. One to talk and one to listen and post.